Sanctioning Authority Must Record Findings Based On Attending Circumstances To Prove Employee's Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that to exercise the powers under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1950, (“the Rules”) the punishing authority cannot merely rely upon the findings of the enquiry officer but is obliged to record a finding clearly mentioning the circumstances that led to his/her satisfaction that the act of the accused constituted grave misconduct or grave negligence.
“The competent authority is obliged in the spirit of the law to record a finding based on material attending circumstances to come to a definite conclusion on consideration which are not extraneous in nature but relevant to the case that the case partakes the nature of grave misconduct or grave negligence and not limited to an ordinary case of misconduct or negligence.”
Section 170 of the Rules provides that if a departmental enquiry was initiated against a public employee but was not concluded before his/her retirement, then the Governor reserves the power to withhold the employee's pension fully or partially or can also order recovery against pecuniary loss caused to the government if the employee was found guilty of grave misconduct or grave negligence during the period of his/her service.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by an almost 90-year-old retired RAS officer against a 24-year-old order of a single judge bench that had dismissed his writ petition in which he had challenged state's government order of withholding his 100% pension for his lifetime. Consequently, the appellant has not been getting a pension for the last 24 years.
It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the power under Section 170 could be exercised only when satisfaction was recorded by the competent authority and that it was a case of grave misconduct or grave negligence. However, neither the charges against the appellant were to this effect, nor any findings of the competent authority. Hence, the order passed was in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by law.
On the contrary, the counsel for the state government submitted that since the competent authority had concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, it was not necessary for it to independently record any findings of the guilt on each and every charge.
Rejecting the argument put forth by the counsel for the State Government, the Court held that the responsibility vested in the enquiry office was limited to a determination of innocence or guilt of a delinquent employee. It was the obligation of the punishing authority to record a clear finding of whether the conclusion led to further inference that a delinquent employee was liable for grave misconduct or grave negligence.
In this background, the Court perused the show cause notices issued to the appellant and observed that in neither of these notices, the punishing authority record any reason or material consideration justifying his/her satisfaction that the appellant had not only committed a normal misconduct or negligence but grave misconduct or grave negligence.
Further, the Court also opined that merely mentioning or a passing reference to the effect that “looking to the gravity of charges” was not enough to fulfil the obligation put by the provision on the punishing authority.
“We find that at one or two places in the order, all that has been stated is “taking into consideration the gravity of charges”. That by itself does not satisfy the legal requirement of recording satisfaction. It was only a passing reference made by the competent authority without entering into any discussion, though in brief, as to why present is considered to be a case of grave misconduct or grave negligence. In sum and substance, the competent authority has proceeded to accept the report of Enquiry Officer as it is.”
Hence, the Court ruled that the legal requirement or satisfaction required under Rule 170 was not fulfilled by the punishing authority. Consequently, the order withholding the entire pension of the appellant for lifetime was held to be in excess of jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, observing that such a legal aspect was not properly appreciated by the single judge, the order that rejected appellant's challenge to the order of the punishing authority was also set aside.
On the remedy to be granted to the appellant, the Court took into account the fact of the case being pending for last 24 years and the appellant nearing the age of 90, and decided to not remand the matter back to the authority to be decided afresh and put a quietus at this stage itself.
Accordingly, the appellant was held entitled to 50% of the pension which he would have gotten in last 24 years in absence of the order of the punishing authority and 100% pension from the date of the judgment of the Court.
Title: Braj Mohan Singh Bareth v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 271